Reviews

I'm not going to write a long review here, because many others have covered the many, many problems with this film. From the weak characters, to the lazy and nonsensical writing, to the total disrespect for the franchise... it's just not a good movie.

Never -- not even during the prequels -- did I find myself shaking my head in utter disbelief as I did during The Last Jedi. Mind you, this was technically a far better movie than the prequels. The effects were better, the acting was better, the cinematography was better... which just makes it so much more inexcusable that SO MANY poor decisions were made on the part of the writers and director.

At least the prequels were TRYING to recapture the Star Wars magic, even if they mostly failed. The Last Jedi was deliberately destroying that magic.

And even THAT wouldn't be so bad if it was done competently. But it wasn't. The story was nonsensical. Full of plot holes and wasted time. The action sequences, while visually appealing for the most part, at best lacked consequence -- and at worst could have been mistaken for the CGI-laden cartoon action of the prequels.

It's a shame too, because The Force Awakens -- for all its flaws -- was actually a thoroughly enjoyable and promising movie. I cared about the characters in that film -- largely the same cast as The Last Jedi. However in this movie they've become one-dimensional and boring. I genuinely didn't care if any of them lived or died, and frankly by the end I was rooting for Kylo Ren to win -- as he's the only remotely compelling character in the whole movie.

I'm afraid this will probably be the last Star Wars movie I actually pay money to see. These characters have been ruined, and unless the next film is an absolute masterpiece, I'm pretty much done here.

Arguably the worst movie I've seen in a very long time.

I got free passes to check out this movie at a pre-screening, without knowing what it was or who was in it. As soon as I saw Amy Schumer I knew I was in for a bad time. She's done some okay stuff in the past but the last year or so has been a total nosedive for her, and I honestly can't even look at her anymore. Between her political rants and her in-your-face tryhard attention-seeking antics, she's just done as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, I did try to give the film a fair shake despite all this, and I have to say that Schumer isn't even the problem. You can replace her with nearly anyone else and the movie will still be awful. Mind you, it's extra awful because of her, but she's not solely responsible for it's failure.

The writing was poor, the entire plot was contrived, and there was really nothing that held my interest overall. It was nice to see Goldie Hawn on the screen again, so if I was forced to say something nice that would have to be it.

Avoid at all costs. Not worth it, even if the tickets are free.

I went into this series without many expectations; I had heard it was well done, but I was not prepared for the tour de force I saw.

What could have been trashy cable schlock turned out to be not only a cultural artifact, but a work of art in and of itself.

I was in college when the OJ trial happened, and while I was never obsessed with it (as many were), it was nonetheless inescapable. I even had a sociology professor who made us watch highlights in class every day. Everyone was talking about it. It was a defining moment of our generation.

This series captured SO MUCH of the feeling that surrounded the trial; the chaos, the morbid fascination, the passion, the dread. It was all laid bare on the screen and masterfully presented with an insight and sensitivity that frankly shocked me. The writers and director somehow managed to sustain incredible dramatic tension throughout the series despite the fact we already knew how the story ends -- in fact, I'd even say that the tension was actually heightened for that very reason.

The casting and acting was likewise perfect across the board. I've read a few complaints about Cuba Gooding Jr. not being the best choice for OJ, but I strongly disagree. While he's not exactly a dead-ringer, he embodies the character so completely and does such a good job with the role that after the first episode you stop being bothered by his lack of physical resemblance.

It's rare that I'm so pleasantly surprised by a production, but this was a standout. Bravo to all involved.

I'm not especially familiar with the Phillip K. Dick source material for this particular story (I am a fan of his work in general), but this show seems to be doing a very good job of laying out an interesting premise and developing a solid story and good characters. The writing is sharp, if imperfect at times, and the acting is uniformly excellent.

The bad news, unfortunately, is the production values and what I have to call the 'Mad Men Effect' -- in that Mad Men set the bar so unfathomably high for period dramas that I'm afraid all other attempts seem to fall far short. This show makes an admirable attempt, however it leans very heavily on CGI, the sets are dressed a little too conspicuously, and everything has a very artificial, digital feel to it. I just can't buy into it as a real, lived-in world to enough of a degree. It's not terrible, but it definitely could be better. I'm sure this has to do with the budget, and I hope they improve in the full series.

Other than that, the show seems solid enough to keep watching. The individual performances make up for any other shortcomings, and the story definitely keeps you interested.

Just finished watching the first season of Narcos, and overall it's a good show. Not a great show by any stretch -- certainly no House of Cards or Breaking Bad -- but the story is interesting and the performances competent enough to keep you watching.

My first real complaint is around the production values. The producers obviously were trying to keep a period look (these events take place in the late 1980s), and they largely succeed; the clothing, hairstyles and locations are all pretty authentic. But there are enough sloppy details to pull you out of the illusion -- things that a show of this caliber should not get wrong. Some of the technology and accessories the characters use (cell phones, jewelry, sunglasses, etc.) are wrong for the era, as are several cars. And not just background cars parked on a street either. In a pivotal scene, one of the key cartel bosses makes his getaway in a pickup truck that wouldn't have been built until the 1990s. And in another scene, a major character arrives in a 1998 BMW. There is absolutely zero excuse for this kind of nonsense. Maybe I'm spoiled by the obsessive period details of Mad Men, but the bar has been set nonetheless and a big-budget show like this can afford to hire people who sweat the small stuff.

Other than that, the acting tends towards the melodramatic at times. I'd also like to have seen a slower buildup to establish backstory and develop the characters. The first half of the series is very rushed, clearly because the director wanted to get to the action quickly. But this is at the expense of character development, and we never really understand what motivates any of the players, including the main characters of Escobar and his DEA nemesis. It's a shame, because there is a lot of opportunity to really dig deep -- these were people dealing with enormously complex, consequential events -- but unfortunately they're only roughly sketched out in favor of some quick action and cheap good-guy/bad-guy melodrama. I really would've liked to have seen this entire first season as a slow-burning character study, leading up to a cliffhanger in the final episodes, with the real payoff in season two.

But still, a good show and worth watching, particularly if you're a fan of the genre. The show finds its stride in the last two episodes (the best of the series thus far). Lets hope that season two is able to build on that.

If this documentary had seen wide release in the months before the election, Mitt Romney would have won.

This film rather handily puts the lie to the liberal media-created caricature of Mitt Romney as the robotic, out-of-touch, uncaring Mormon weirdo who looks down on the common man from atop his pile of money. Here, Mitt comes off as the man he really is; a warm and loving father, a good friend, and a genuinely humble man who truly loves his country and wants everyone to succeed.

Mind you, this side of him was always there to anyone who cared to look, but the media in this country was obsessed with reelecting Barack Obama, so any and all of his positive attributes were ignored in favor of maintaining the false narrative constructed by the Obama campaign.

This film will change many minds about who Romney is. Unfortunately the wrong man already won, and we're paying dearly for that mistake.

Here's another film that's been torn apart by critics for absolutely no good reason whatsoever. In fact, I delayed seeing it because I'd heard so many bad reviews that I didn't bother until I could find it online. I figured that if they couldn't make a good Gatsby film with Robert Redford, Baz Luhrmann didn't stand a chance, even with Leo DiCaprio. What a mistake.

Mind you, it's not entirely perfect... I'd have done just a few things differently, and the choice of integrating modern music into a period film like this can be jarring, especially in the beginning. But after the first twenty minutes or so everything really does come together, and it becomes a beautiful, colorful, and engrossing film. The performances are absolutely wonderful, especially DiCaprio, who is spot-on and captures the Jay Gatsby character perfectly.

I really was shocked and amazed at how incredibly good this turned out to be. I wish that I'd have seen it in the theater.

This is one of those films where I'm left wondering what the bloody hell the critics are thinking. Did they even see the same movie?

This was a great film, period. Solid all the way around; great story, great acting, lots of emotion, beautifully shot... what else can you ask for? Sure, there were a few flaws, and I don't think Statham is quite the dramatic actor that the role may have demanded, but he turned in a wonderful performance and made it his own nonetheless, and deserves a tremendous amount of credit for even taking the risk. There was not one scene where I felt he was in over his head.

This was a wonderful, heartbreaking story with far more going for it than the critics have allowed. Totally worth watching.

Okay, so it's not quite as awful as The Phantom Menace was, but it comes damn close to damaging the LOTR franchise in the same way TPM did to the Star Wars franchise.

Let's review here:

1. The story is damaged within the first ten minutes and never recovers at any point in the film. The fact is, simply, that Bilbo's character is never developed. We have no freaking idea why Gandalf chose him or why he's so important. We're given no reason to really care about him, and therefore it makes zero sense why any of the other characters should care about him either. The entire film suffers for this, because Bilbo is, essentially, the lead. And when you don't care about the lead, you pretty much don't care about anything else.

2. The tone is WAY off. Yes, The Hobbit was a children's book. However, the film needs to fit into the already-established LOTR universe, and it struggles to do so. The first half is filled with bizarre slapstick and childish humor more akin to Sesame Street than a LOTR film, while the second half attempts to take a drastic turn for the dark, making everything seem completely disjointed. It just didn't work.

3. CGI disasters. Yep, Peter Jackson seems to have taken a page from the George Lucas 'How To Ruin A Beloved Franchise' playbook, and leaned WAY too hard on CGI for this film. I know there was quite a bit of CGI in the original films, but it was truly abused in this one. Far too many characters were pure CGI creations, and way too many scenes were set entirely on a green screen. CGI is best when its working in support of practical sets and effects, not when it's the only effect being used. Jackson struck a near-perfect balance in LOTR, but The Hobbit just seemed like one big cartoon most of the time. Bad. And made even worse by the fact that we already know what Jackson and his production team are capable of.

4. HFR is as bad, if not worse, than everyone says. Shooting this film in HFR was probably the single worst decision anyone could have made. Everything looks cheap and plastic. You can see the seams on the actors prosthetics, you can tell that the sets are cardboard, and the already-problematic use of CGI is exacerbated tenfold. HFR takes the magic out of films. Period.

5. No attractive, human protagonists. This may sound superficial, but the fact is that without a strong lead that people can relate to, your film is likely going to fail. Especially in a film that is filled with monsters and weird creatures and other oddities. It's really hard for people to empathize with characters that they either aren't attracted to or can't relate to on some basic level. Nobody wants to be a dwarf or a hobbit. LOTR had several strong, attractive human leads, both male and female. And yes, Frodo and Sam were indeed beloved characters, but they were brilliantly written and developed in a way that neither Bilbo nor any of the dwarfs were in The Hobbit. As such, the audience simply cannot emotionally attach itself to anyone in this film.

6. Completely impossible scenarios that don't even make sense within its own universe. This is a big one and it drives directly to the cartoonish nature of the film. There are several scenes, most notably during the escape from the Goblin kingdom, where the characters are put through a series of actions that are laughably absurd. Now, this is a movie and not real life, and nobody expects perfect physics. But everything still needs to work within its own universe, and the fact is that some of these stunts are just dumb and insulting. You'd never have seen this kind of nonsense in the LOTR trilogy, and this film should follow the same rules. Quite frankly some of the action scenes could have been cut out altogether and the film would have been better off for it.

THE GOOD:

A great scene between Gollum and Bilbo is very much worth watching. Highlight of the entire movie, and almost makes the rest of the nonsense worthwhile.

I went into this film with fairly low expectations, but boy was I pleasantly surprised.

This was a great movie, with a ton of fantastic jokes, a storyline that a lot of people approaching 40 can relate to, and a great overall message.

It is of course vulgar and crude at times, but it's an Apatow production, so you should know what to expect in that department by now. Fortunately it all comes together really well and makes for a really entertaining film.

The only negatives were that it was a bit long (although it doesn't really feel its length for the most part), and I felt that Jonathan Lithgow's character could have been written a little bit better.

Ignore the bad reviews; if you're a yuppie approaching 40 (or have already been there), you'll find plenty to love.

This film is a real gem; I wasn't expecting too much from it, but was very pleasantly surprised.

It's not as self-serious as the recent 'Brick' which also explores the noir-highschool concept (rather brilliantly, I might add), but still delivers appropriate amounts of drama and tension where it counts, as well as a dose of humor for good measure.

The script is tight and interesting, if very slightly predictable (anyone with even a cursory knowledge of film noir could guess the direction that Micha Barton's character was going to take in the end), but the actors did a great job with their material, and the director kept the visuals interesting without going over the top on sex appeal or exaggerating the lifestyles of high school students; nobody drives a Porsche, nobody lives in a mansion, none of the girls are perfect barbie dolls, etc. The director deserves credit for staying away from these tropes and the characters benefit greatly for it.

Overall, a very good movie, and very much worth watching.

There are so many good things to say about Act of Valor that I hardly know where to begin. It's not a standard action movie, no matter what some cynical reviewers have said. This is a realistic look at what it's like to be a modern special operator with the Navy SEALs. Is some of it dramatized? Possibly, but not very much at all. Plenty of SEALs have come forward and confirmed that this film is a realistic look at their work, and from what we know about the extraordinary nature of these men and their missions, I see no reason to doubt that. Sometimes reality is more interesting than anything Michael Bay can dream up.

The cast are actual SEALs and not actors, so yes, delivery of the dialog is not up to the standards of the Royal Shakespeare Company. It doesn't matter. These guys did a fine job with their lines and conveyed their dramatic scenes ably, mostly because you knew that they had lived these situations themselves. They were most comfortable in the debriefing scenes, speaking in their lingo and talking about the specifics of their mission, and it was interesting to see how such things go down in reality.

The non-SEAL actors did a great job as well, particularly one scene where a high-profile subject was interrogated by a CIA agent. It was riveting stuff, and quite fascinating as well.

But of course, the action is the most memorable, and the film delivers. It's absolutely amazing what these men do on behalf of their country, and the code of honor they live by. I sleep well at night knowing they're out there.

Some will write this entire film off as propaganda or a recruiting poster. Whatever. If it serves to make people feel good about the work their military is doing and helps them understand the men that are picking up the hardest of that work, then so be it. If there's any set of people out there who deserve to be glorified, it's these guys. They work in the shadows, for little pay, often never able to talk about what they've done, literally ready to give their lives at any moment. They deserve some glory.

If you look up 'pretentious art house film' in a dictionary, you should find 'Enter The Void' as a prime example.

It's a shame too, because it starts off with a very interesting story, which unfolds in a visually stunning and highly original manner.

But then it completely goes off the rails and veers into the realm of self-indulgent absurdity to such an extreme that it becomes excruciatingly difficult to watch. The filmmaker was very clearly inspired by the likes of David Lynch, however the characters and settings lack the loving whimsy and craft that Lynch brings to his work which makes his absurdity both entertaining and worthwhile. A good portion of this film is just weirdness for it's own sake.

Everyone involved with the production does deserve a lot of credit though, because as a technical achievement it's quite amazing. I just wish that the director would have exercised some restraint, and focused on the story more than the atmosphere. With some good editing, the storytelling and style could really shine.

Some of course will view these flaws as brilliance. But there will always be a certain number of moviegoers who mistake pretense for genius, regardless of how silly it actually is. And make no mistake, most of the final act of this film is nothing but visually impressive filler, every bit as vapid as the most frivolous Michael Bay explosion.

Still, I'd recommend seeing it. The cinematography is indeed quite special, and if nothing else it can serve as an object lesson in how a very promising concept can be taken a step too far.

This was not a great movie. It could have been a great movie, but it was let down in two major ways.

First off, two of the three lead characters are awful. Blake Lively makes for good eye candy, but she just isn't a good actress. She's not bad in smaller supporting roles (like her part in The Town), but she simply cannot carry a lead. Unfortunately the entire film basically revolves around her (and she narrates), so her shortcomings are brought front and center. Every time her voice-over came on, I cringed. It really was not a good choice.

Taylor Kitsch is no better. Again... good eye candy, poor acting. Very poor acting. He just has no soul, and brings absolutely nothing to his character whatsoever. He should be in a brainless Fast & Furious movie playing opposite Vin Diesel, not an Oliver Stone drama.

The second major failure of this film is even more serious, and that is the story structure. We are never really given the opportunity to understand why the three lead characters (Chon, Ben and Ophelia) have such strong feelings for each other. We're told that they do, but never given any real reason to believe it. This is extremely important, because literally the entire premise of the film hangs on their relationship. If you're going to build a dramatic story around an unorthodox three- way relationship, you had better explain in more than one quick scene exactly how this relationship happened, otherwise the audience won't know why they should care about the characters. Especially when the actors portraying these characters aren't very good to begin with.

I know that I kept asking myself why these two guys share a girl, how they have absolutely zero jealousy, why they never once thought of double-crossing each other, and why either of them care so deeply for her -- to the point of being willing to risk their lives and commit horrible atrocities to save her. Where did all this love and loyalty come from? It was never adequately explained, and the entire movie suffers tremendously for it.

On a slightly more positive note, the veteran actors did a fine job. Benicio Del Toro was wonderful as a psychotic cartel underboss, John Travolta chewed the scenery to bits, and Salma Hayek was entirely believable in her role as well. Unfortunately, their competence only served to underscore the incompetence of the younger leads. It's telling that the best scene in the entire film was between Del Toro and Travolta, with none of the three lead actors anywhere to be found, and hinted at the promise this movie squandered.

A lot of reviews took issue with the violence portrayed in the film, but I didn't have a problem with that. You really can't make a movie about Mexican drug cartels without violence, so I didn't feel it was gratuitous. Unfortunately, however, it also didn't make the movie any more believable from a plot perspective.

Overall, I just don't think this was a very good film. I don't think that Stone felt entirely comfortable with what he was doing here, trying at times to be Tarantino but failing miserably. And likewise, I think that if this film had been in the hands of Tarantino or Robert Rodriguez, it likely would have come out much better, perhaps even great.

After seeing this horrible film (on a dare), I was confused. How could Adam Sandler take such an absolute nosedive in his career so quickly and completely? I mean, he's demonstrated that he has some talent and knows how to make a funny movie (Wedding Singer, Zohan, etc.), and even his mediocre movies (all the others) aren't really truly awful... until Jack and Jill and now this. He does seem to be actively campaigning for his very own Razzie category at this point.

Then I had a revelation. Maybe this is all part of some elaborate real-time performance art piece, á la Joaquin Phoenix in I'm Still Here, in which Sandler deliberately tanks his career in the most public and humiliating way possible. Then after finally hitting rock bottom, he'll go on Letterman and proclaim the last five years a hoax and release an indie documentary about the nature of fame, Hollywood, and the human experience, finally going on to win a prize at Sundance.

At least that's what I hope, because if that isn't in fact what is happening here, the other option is almost too sad and depressing to think about. So fingers crossed for the whole hoax/indie documentary thing.

Maybe it's because I went into this movie with low expectations from having read so many bad reviews, but I thought Hangover 2 was fine movie.

Yes, it's almost the same as the original. But it's also completely self-aware in that regard, and for that reason I really can't hold the similarity against it. It's part of the shtick.

The ensemble continues to have great chemistry and the politically incorrect humor is darker than the first movie (an appreciated improvement), but almost always very funny. I don't know what else people were expecting to see here.

No, it's not a perfect film, and a few things didn't work; Mason Lee was awful as Teddy - an admittedly small role, but he sucked the life out of every scene he was in nonetheless. And there were a few moments when Alan's antics were more frustrating than humorous.

I just don't think it deserves all the bad reviews and disappointment.

The unfortunate thing about Hunter S. Thompson adaptations is that his novels were simply not meant to be movies. There are a great many things you can get away with in writing that won't translate to film, even in the care of the most brilliant and enthusiastic directors and actors available.

So the director faces a difficult conundrum before the film is even shot; do you gut the source material in order to make a good film, or do you stay true to the novel and risk turning it into an incoherent disaster? There's very little middle ground here.

Unfortunately, The Rum Diary chooses to remain as true to the original as possible, and predictably fails as a movie.

It has a few funny moments and a few interesting lines... and that's about it. The plot is shallow, as are the characters. You never reach a point where you feel fully invested in the story or the protagonists; they're all just people doing things. The 'bad guys' are bad essentially because we're told they are, and ditto the 'good guys'. The audience is never given any opportunity to really draw their own conclusions; the rich dude who wants to open a hotel is 'bad', and the drunk journalists and natives are 'good'. I was never really clear on any of the reasons though, although Johnny Depp's character seemed to be pretty sure of it. It comes off as lazy storytelling, but really it's because the director didn't want to take liberties with the book.

The cast did a good enough job with the material; Depp always does good work, and the supporting actors were up to the task as well. Although Amber Heard was out of place in the ensemble; the only reason she gets any work whatsoever is because of her apparent eagerness to walk around naked on camera. Not that there's anything wrong with that of course (ahem), but her looks exceed her acting ability by a factor of ten.

Honestly, I didn't enjoy the film very much at all. I tried to get into it in the first half, but after an hour it had completely lost me. I would only recommend it to die-hard Hunter S. Thompson fans.

I wanted to enjoy this film very much, and was looking forward to seeing it.

Unfortunately it doesn't deliver in any way other than visually. It was shot and edited beautifully, and had a lot of potential. But that's where it ends.

The story is boring and meandering, and never really gives you anything to sink your teeth into. The character development is shockingly superficial, as though we're automatically supposed to care about Hemingway and Gellhorn simply because they're Hemmingway and Gellhorn. Sadly, it just doesn't work like that; the notoriety of he subject matter isn't enough to carry the story without competent writing to back it up.

Ultimately we're left with a disappointingly empty portrayal of one of the most colorful and dynamic individuals in history.

Brick is an outstanding effort, and something that all true film buffs should see.

Without getting into too much detail, it's basically a highly traditional 1940's film noir set in a modern high school. And while that may sound trite and gimmicky, it works better than you can possibly imagine, thanks to the truly amazing cast, writers and director.

No, it's not a realistic portrayal of high school life. It's not meant to be. The dialog and characters are more akin to Shakespeare than teen drama, and the subject matter is very grown up. The film soars in it's ability to very effectively overlay the dark story upon this suburban high school setting. All the characters, locations and interactions have parallels in classic film noir, and are very cleverly adapted to suit the world that the film occupies. It's quite brilliant, and even more so if you're familiar with the genre.

Overall a truly unique, and very rewarding experience.

I avoided this film like the plague when it was in theaters, having heard nothing but the worst reviews imaginable. Hardly anyone had anything nice to say about it, and usually that is a pretty good indicator a film is bad. I mean, one or two bad reviews can usually be brushed off. Even a 50/50 split amongst critics can sometimes indicate a good, but misunderstood film. But when a movie is universally panned, it's a safe bet that you're not missing anything by skipping it.

Wow, were they wrong here. I decided to catch Sucker Punch on HBO now that it's available, and I'm very glad I did. It's definitely not a perfect movie, but it's also nowhere near as bad as we've all been led to believe.

It's got a few moments that don't really work, and I could have done entirely without the narration at the end, but other than that, it's a terrific, beautifully stylized action fantasy, filled with imaginative villains, lush graphics, pretty girls and a uniquely offbeat storyline.

I simply don't understand where all the hate came from here. Yeah, it generally portrays a male adolescent fantasy of hot girls in skimpy outfits. Big freaking deal. There are far more exploitative films out there, few of which inspired the level of vitriol hurled at Sucker Punch. It's a cool fantasy film, with heavy elements of B-movie and classic pulp noir skillfully added for good measure.

How this film can be hated but something like Grindhouse critically beloved is beyond my comprehension. Yes, Grindhouse is better. But not so much better to justify the massive disparity (83% to 23% on Rotten Tomatoes).

And I'm not even a big Zach Snyder fan to begin with. I thought Watchmen was awful, and didn't think very much of 300 either. But I have to give him credit on this one; he was truly robbed this time around.